On Sunday, April 21, 2013 4:49:16 PM UTC+1, Adam Lea wrote:
On 21/04/13 09:17, Sutartsorric wrote:

On 2013-04-21 07:36:04 +0000, Adam Lea said:



On 21/04/13 08:08, Dawlish wrote:



I'll say what I say, Col and you can say what you say. *)) Neither

has any control over the other, nor should we and that's the same for

everyone - thank goodness! The alternative is moderation, or a forum.

Amazingly enough there's no rule against bringing non-posting members

up in a discussion either! We both know that - so where's the

"swipe", exactly?





Do the words "social etiquette" have any meaning to you whatsoever?



Social etiquette?



On an unmoderated newsgroup?





Yes, that's correct. You know, the general guidelines of social

etiquette that allow people to interact properly and get on with each

other in a civilised society. The sort of ideas that your parents should

have brought you up with whilst you were growing up. I fail to see why a

newsgroup should be any different to interacting with people face to

face, unless you are a coward who is only brave enough to mouth off

whilst dissociated from any consequences.

You see it your way; I see it mine. The essence of a newsgroup. You are getting ratty and rather abusive, after having snipped most of the points I made, because you are not getting me to see your point. It's how things often go.

On Apr 21, 7:03*am, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 1:42:04 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
* * *What's this, a scorched earth policy? *Going for broke? *You're

never going to be taken seriously on this group so you make sure no-

one else can enjoy it either. *God, you're pathetic. *Nasty as well..

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

If I decide to reply to someone, hughes, my "style" won't be dictated by someone like you, I can assure you. As I've said before; you are welcome to your opinion, but this present round of invective has been precipitated by me *exposed your attempted lie.

He's done exactly what I said he would and talked late night, veiled, violence again and now has some mad idea that stuartstorric is me. I think he thought that Reg was me as well. Put him right, dear boy, will you?

PS You can bet you life that the first thing that Will does this morning is to check how many new people are "supporting him". The temptation to post must be huge and I hope he does. No-one cares what the *far right-wing, very bitter old man (perfect existence, isn't it) *does this morning except himself and no-one cares, but him, whether he posts. *))

The present round of invective was triggered by Will's
straightforward statement in his "resignation letter" that the reason
he left was because of you. Yes, you, Paul Garvey of Dawlish. You
simply cannot escape this - it's there in black and white. I say
"triggered" because there is a deep well of resentment against you and
Will's departure is yet another case of the lid being lifted.

As for "style" you simply haven't got it. If I walked into my
pub and annoyed and insulted everyone in sight I would be friendless
and probably barred and it would do me little good to protest that it
was my "style".

Your replies to Col and Adam Lea are laughable in their sheer
pomposity and lack of self-awareness. They read like corporate
bollock-speak.

I can't make sense of your second paragraph. Who is the "He"
referred to? Is it Lawrence, one of your 1001 betes noires? Can't
be; there's no reference to him in my post. Is it me? Can't be; the
reply is to me. And if it is me where on earth did you get the idea
that I had confused you with sutartsorric or Reg. And who is the "far
right-wing very bitter old man"? Surely not Will. Is it Lawrence?
He's probably younger than you, you know. No, he can't be, you're
14.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:09:55 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Apr 21, 7:03*am, Dawlish wrote:

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 1:42:04 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:

* * *What's this, a scorched earth policy? *Going for broke? *You're



never going to be taken seriously on this group so you make sure no-



one else can enjoy it either. *God, you're pathetic. *Nasty as well.



Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.



If I decide to reply to someone, hughes, my "style" won't be dictated by someone like you, I can assure you. As I've said before; you are welcome to your opinion, but this present round of invective has been precipitated by me *exposed your attempted lie.



He's done exactly what I said he would and talked late night, veiled, violence again and now has some mad idea that stuartstorric is me. I think he thought that Reg was me as well. Put him right, dear boy, will you?



PS You can bet you life that the first thing that Will does this morning is to check how many new people are "supporting him". The temptation to post must be huge and I hope he does. No-one cares what the *far right-wing, very bitter old man (perfect existence, isn't it) *does this morning except himself and no-one cares, but him, whether he posts. *))



The present round of invective was triggered by Will's

straightforward statement in his "resignation letter" that the reason

he left was because of you. Yes, you, Paul Garvey of Dawlish. You

simply cannot escape this - it's there in black and white. I say

"triggered" because there is a deep well of resentment against you and

Will's departure is yet another case of the lid being lifted.



As for "style" you simply haven't got it. If I walked into my

pub and annoyed and insulted everyone in sight I would be friendless

and probably barred and it would do me little good to protest that it

was my "style".



Your replies to Col and Adam Lea are laughable in their sheer

pomposity and lack of self-awareness. They read like corporate

bollock-speak.



I can't make sense of your second paragraph. Who is the "He"

referred to? Is it Lawrence, one of your 1001 betes noires? Can't

be; there's no reference to him in my post. Is it me? Can't be; the

reply is to me. And if it is me where on earth did you get the idea

that I had confused you with sutartsorric or Reg. And who is the "far

right-wing very bitter old man"? Surely not Will. Is it Lawrence?

He's probably younger than you, you know. No, he can't be, you're

14.



Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

You didn't like me exposing your lie did you? I see you never try to return to it, or address it, as you cannot valaidate that untruth. As I said, you posted it for effect, hoping you'd get away with the untrue little snidy swipe. Once again, your views are irrelevant. Whether you like it. or not, you are a part of a newsgroup that is the sum of its parts. Those parts include me, as well as you and the feeling of dislike is mutual, for very good reason, as all your posts now are directed at me. They have now degenerated into outright abuse and childish name-calling. Your posts do when you lose it. I'm afraid that your foul mouth can be as bad as it gets at that time and you know that. I *never* resort to foul-mouthed writing. Have you ever noticed?

Lawrence turned 60 recently. His paranoia led him to think that I was posting under 3 aliases, but he's just made himself look stupid again, as that has been shown to be ridiculous. No-one accused you of doing that, but you are under a fog of invective and you are now confused as to who has said what. Where did you get that idea from?

On Sunday, 21 April 2013 18:35:03 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:09:55 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Apr 21, 7:03*am, Dawlish wrote:



On Sunday, April 21, 2013 1:42:04 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:



* * *What's this, a scorched earth policy? *Going for broke? *You're







never going to be taken seriously on this group so you make sure no-







one else can enjoy it either. *God, you're pathetic. *Nasty as well.







Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.







If I decide to reply to someone, hughes, my "style" won't be dictated by someone like you, I can assure you. As I've said before; you are welcome to your opinion, but this present round of invective has been precipitated by me *exposed your attempted lie.







He's done exactly what I said he would and talked late night, veiled, violence again and now has some mad idea that stuartstorric is me. I think he thought that Reg was me as well. Put him right, dear boy, will you?







PS You can bet you life that the first thing that Will does this morning is to check how many new people are "supporting him". The temptation to post must be huge and I hope he does. No-one cares what the *far right-wing, very bitter old man (perfect existence, isn't it) *does this morning except himself and no-one cares, but him, whether he posts. *))







The present round of invective was triggered by Will's



straightforward statement in his "resignation letter" that the reason



he left was because of you. Yes, you, Paul Garvey of Dawlish. You



simply cannot escape this - it's there in black and white. I say



"triggered" because there is a deep well of resentment against you and



Will's departure is yet another case of the lid being lifted.







As for "style" you simply haven't got it. If I walked into my



pub and annoyed and insulted everyone in sight I would be friendless



and probably barred and it would do me little good to protest that it



was my "style".







Your replies to Col and Adam Lea are laughable in their sheer



pomposity and lack of self-awareness. They read like corporate



bollock-speak.







I can't make sense of your second paragraph. Who is the "He"



referred to? Is it Lawrence, one of your 1001 betes noires? Can't



be; there's no reference to him in my post. Is it me? Can't be; the



reply is to me. And if it is me where on earth did you get the idea



that I had confused you with sutartsorric or Reg. And who is the "far



right-wing very bitter old man"? Surely not Will. Is it Lawrence?



He's probably younger than you, you know. No, he can't be, you're



14.







Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.



You didn't like me exposing your lie did you? I see you never try to return to it, or address it, as you cannot valaidate that untruth. As I said, you posted it for effect, hoping you'd get away with the untrue little snidy swipe. Once again, your views are irrelevant. Whether you like it. or not, you are a part of a newsgroup that is the sum of its parts. Those parts include me, as well as you and the feeling of dislike is mutual, for very good reason, as all your posts now are directed at me. They have now degenerated into outright abuse and childish name-calling. Your posts do when you lose it. I'm afraid that your foul mouth can be as bad as it gets at that time and you know that. I *never* resort to foul-mouthed writing. Have you ever noticed?



Lawrence turned 60 recently. His paranoia led him to think that I was posting under 3 aliases, but he's just made himself look stupid again, as that has been shown to be ridiculous. No-one accused you of doing that, but you are under a fog of invective and you are now confused as to who has said what. Where did you get that idea from?

And you didn't send a birthday card:-(........hold on I mean :-)

On 2013-04-21 15:49:16 +0000, Adam Lea said:

On 21/04/13 09:17, Sutartsorric wrote:
On 2013-04-21 07:36:04 +0000, Adam Lea said:

On 21/04/13 08:08, Dawlish wrote:

I'll say what I say, Col and you can say what you say. *)) Neither
has any control over the other, nor should we and that's the same for
everyone - thank goodness! The alternative is moderation, or a forum.
Amazingly enough there's no rule against bringing non-posting members
up in a discussion either! We both know that - so where's the
"swipe", exactly?


Do the words "social etiquette" have any meaning to you whatsoever?

Social etiquette?

On an unmoderated newsgroup?


Yes, that's correct. You know, the general guidelines of social
etiquette that allow people to interact properly and get on with each
other in a civilised society. The sort of ideas that your parents
should have brought you up with whilst you were growing up. I fail to
see why a newsgroup should be any different to interacting with people
face to face, unless you are a coward who is only brave enough to mouth
off whilst dissociated from any consequences.

So, in short, you are trying to stifle debate by insisting everyone
abides by the rules that you want to impose.

Do you apply this rigorous demand to your own actions? Your parents
brought you up with the rule that you did not break the law, but can
you put your hand on your heart and say you have never driven at more
than 70mph on a motorway, or stopped on double yellow lines in the
street, for instance?

On Sunday, 21 April 2013 20:07:03 UTC+1, yttiw wrote:
On 2013-04-21 15:49:16 +0000, Adam Lea said:



On 21/04/13 09:17, Sutartsorric wrote:

On 2013-04-21 07:36:04 +0000, Adam Lea said:



On 21/04/13 08:08, Dawlish wrote:



I'll say what I say, Col and you can say what you say. *)) Neither

has any control over the other, nor should we and that's the same for

everyone - thank goodness! The alternative is moderation, or a forum.

Amazingly enough there's no rule against bringing non-posting members

up in a discussion either! We both know that - so where's the

"swipe", exactly?





Do the words "social etiquette" have any meaning to you whatsoever?



Social etiquette?



On an unmoderated newsgroup?





Yes, that's correct. You know, the general guidelines of social

etiquette that allow people to interact properly and get on with each

other in a civilised society. The sort of ideas that your parents

should have brought you up with whilst you were growing up. I fail to

see why a newsgroup should be any different to interacting with people

face to face, unless you are a coward who is only brave enough to mouth

off whilst dissociated from any consequences.



So, in short, you are trying to stifle debate by insisting everyone

abides by the rules that you want to impose.



Do you apply this rigorous demand to your own actions? Your parents

brought you up with the rule that you did not break the law, but can

you put your hand on your heart and say you have never driven at more

than 70mph on a motorway, or stopped on double yellow lines in the

street, for instance?


You really are a devil


Left wing anarchist you are.

Freedom for Tooting

On Apr 21, 6:35*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:09:55 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Apr 21, 7:03*am, Dawlish wrote:

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 1:42:04 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:

* * *What's this, a scorched earth policy? *Going for broke? *You're

never going to be taken seriously on this group so you make sure no-

one else can enjoy it either. *God, you're pathetic. *Nasty as well.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

If I decide to reply to someone, hughes, my "style" won't be dictated by someone like you, I can assure you. As I've said before; you are welcome to your opinion, but this present round of invective has been precipitated by me *exposed your attempted lie.

He's done exactly what I said he would and talked late night, veiled, violence again and now has some mad idea that stuartstorric is me. I think he thought that Reg was me as well. Put him right, dear boy, will you?

PS You can bet you life that the first thing that Will does this morning is to check how many new people are "supporting him". The temptation to post must be huge and I hope he does. No-one cares what the *far right-wing, very bitter old man (perfect existence, isn't it) *does this morning except himself and no-one cares, but him, whether he posts. *))

* * * *The present round of invective was triggered by Will's

straightforward statement in his "resignation letter" that the reason

he left was because of you. *Yes, you, *Paul Garvey of Dawlish. *You

simply cannot escape this - it's there in black and white. *I say

"triggered" because there is a deep well of resentment against you and

Will's departure is yet another case of the lid being lifted.

* * * *As for "style" you simply haven't got it. *If I walked into my

pub and annoyed and insulted everyone in sight I would be friendless

and probably barred and it would do me little good to protest that it

was my "style".

* * * Your replies to Col and Adam Lea are laughable in their sheer

pomposity and lack of self-awareness. *They read like corporate

bollock-speak.

* * * I can't make sense of your second paragraph. *Who is the "He"

referred to? * *Is it Lawrence, one of your 1001 betes noires? *Can't

be; there's no reference to him in my post. *Is it me? *Can't be; the

reply is to me. *And if it is me where on earth did you get the idea

that I had confused you with sutartsorric or Reg. *And who is the "far

right-wing very bitter old man"? Surely not Will. *Is it Lawrence?

He's probably younger than you, you know. *No, he can't be, you're

14.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

You didn't like me exposing your lie did you? I see you never try to return to it, or address it, as you cannot valaidate that untruth. As I said, you posted it for effect, hoping you'd get away with the untrue little snidy swipe. Once again, your views are irrelevant. Whether you like it. or not, you are a part of a newsgroup that is the sum of its parts. Those parts include me, as well as you and the feeling of dislike is mutual, for very good reason, as all your posts now are directed at me. They have now degenerated into outright abuse and childish name-calling. Your posts do when you lose it. I'm afraid that your foul mouth can be as bad as it gets at that time and you know that. I *never* resort to foul-mouthed writing. Have you ever noticed?

Lawrence turned 60 recently. His paranoia led him to think that I was posting under 3 aliases, but he's just made himself look stupid again, as that has been shown to be ridiculous. No-one accused you of doing that, but you are under a fog of invective and you are now confused as to who has said what. Where did you get that idea from?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's this "lie" you're banging on about?

What amazes me about you is the level of denial you show.
Saying that Will is "resting" reminds me of the Monty Python Parrot
Sketch where the dead parrot is claimed by the pet-shop owner to be
merely "resting". Of course it was. We all need a rest from you,
anyway. Two weather groups solved the problem in the most obvious way
by banning you. You're probably in denial over that, too.

You are such a fool. Do you realise that very few people on
this group are going to agree with or amplify anything you write, even
on AGW, simply for not wanting to be in any way associated with you?

I have a voluminous postbag from over the years in which the
source of your dysfunctional personality is discussed at length. I
don't think you'd like to read it but you ought to. Something,
surely, must be able to penetrate the battlements you have built round
yourself and from which you fire your poison darts.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Monday, April 22, 2013 4:44:15 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:35*pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:09:55 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Apr 21, 7:03*am, Dawlish wrote:



On Sunday, April 21, 2013 1:42:04 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:



* * *What's this, a scorched earth policy? *Going for broke? *You're



never going to be taken seriously on this group so you make sure no-



one else can enjoy it either. *God, you're pathetic. *Nasty as well.



Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.



If I decide to reply to someone, hughes, my "style" won't be dictated by someone like you, I can assure you. As I've said before; you are welcome to your opinion, but this present round of invective has been precipitated by me *exposed your attempted lie.



He's done exactly what I said he would and talked late night, veiled, violence again and now has some mad idea that stuartstorric is me. I think he thought that Reg was me as well. Put him right, dear boy, will you?



PS You can bet you life that the first thing that Will does this morning is to check how many new people are "supporting him". The temptation to post must be huge and I hope he does. No-one cares what the *far right-wing, very bitter old man (perfect existence, isn't it) *does this morning except himself and no-one cares, but him, whether he posts. *))



* * * *The present round of invective was triggered by Will's



straightforward statement in his "resignation letter" that the reason



he left was because of you. *Yes, you, *Paul Garvey of Dawlish. *You



simply cannot escape this - it's there in black and white. *I say



"triggered" because there is a deep well of resentment against you and



Will's departure is yet another case of the lid being lifted.



* * * *As for "style" you simply haven't got it. *If I walked into my



pub and annoyed and insulted everyone in sight I would be friendless



and probably barred and it would do me little good to protest that it



was my "style".



* * * Your replies to Col and Adam Lea are laughable in their sheer



pomposity and lack of self-awareness. *They read like corporate



bollock-speak.



* * * I can't make sense of your second paragraph. *Who is the "He"



referred to? * *Is it Lawrence, one of your 1001 betes noires? *Can't



be; there's no reference to him in my post. *Is it me? *Can't be; the



reply is to me. *And if it is me where on earth did you get the idea



that I had confused you with sutartsorric or Reg. *And who is the "far



right-wing very bitter old man"? Surely not Will. *Is it Lawrence?



He's probably younger than you, you know. *No, he can't be, you're



14.



Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.



You didn't like me exposing your lie did you? I see you never try to return to it, or address it, as you cannot valaidate that untruth. As I said, you posted it for effect, hoping you'd get away with the untrue little snidy swipe. Once again, your views are irrelevant. Whether you like it. or not, you are a part of a newsgroup that is the sum of its parts. Those parts include me, as well as you and the feeling of dislike is mutual, for very good reason, as all your posts now are directed at me. They have now degenerated into outright abuse and childish name-calling. Your posts do when you lose it. I'm afraid that your foul mouth can be as bad as it gets at that time and you know that. I *never* resort to foul-mouthed writing. Have you ever noticed?



Lawrence turned 60 recently. His paranoia led him to think that I was posting under 3 aliases, but he's just made himself look stupid again, as that has been shown to be ridiculous. No-one accused you of doing that, but you are under a fog of invective and you are now confused as to who has said what. Where did you get that idea from?- Hide quoted text -



- Show quoted text -



What's this "lie" you're banging on about?



What amazes me about you is the level of denial you show.

Saying that Will is "resting" reminds me of the Monty Python Parrot

Sketch where the dead parrot is claimed by the pet-shop owner to be

merely "resting". Of course it was. We all need a rest from you,

anyway. Two weather groups solved the problem in the most obvious way

by banning you. You're probably in denial over that, too.



You are such a fool. Do you realise that very few people on

this group are going to agree with or amplify anything you write, even

on AGW, simply for not wanting to be in any way associated with you?



I have a voluminous postbag from over the years in which the

source of your dysfunctional personality is discussed at length. I

don't think you'd like to read it but you ought to. Something,

surely, must be able to penetrate the battlements you have built round

yourself and from which you fire your poison darts.



Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Do you ever get the sense that you are not in control, even though you'd like to be, hughes? Scroll back. You'll find your lie. You'll find you have ignored it and you'll find your descent into invective which has no effect. The newsgroup is the sum of its parts. Which part of that do you fail to understand? Unfortunately, you are one of them, but that's just an opinion - just like yours, dear boy.

On Monday, April 22, 2013 4:44:15 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:35*pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:09:55 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Apr 21, 7:03*am, Dawlish wrote:



On Sunday, April 21, 2013 1:42:04 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:



* * *What's this, a scorched earth policy? *Going for broke? *You're



never going to be taken seriously on this group so you make sure no-



one else can enjoy it either. *God, you're pathetic. *Nasty as well.



Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.



If I decide to reply to someone, hughes, my "style" won't be dictated by someone like you, I can assure you. As I've said before; you are welcome to your opinion, but this present round of invective has been precipitated by me *exposed your attempted lie.



He's done exactly what I said he would and talked late night, veiled, violence again and now has some mad idea that stuartstorric is me. I think he thought that Reg was me as well. Put him right, dear boy, will you?



PS You can bet you life that the first thing that Will does this morning is to check how many new people are "supporting him". The temptation to post must be huge and I hope he does. No-one cares what the *far right-wing, very bitter old man (perfect existence, isn't it) *does this morning except himself and no-one cares, but him, whether he posts. *))



* * * *The present round of invective was triggered by Will's



straightforward statement in his "resignation letter" that the reason



he left was because of you. *Yes, you, *Paul Garvey of Dawlish. *You



simply cannot escape this - it's there in black and white. *I say



"triggered" because there is a deep well of resentment against you and



Will's departure is yet another case of the lid being lifted.



* * * *As for "style" you simply haven't got it. *If I walked into my



pub and annoyed and insulted everyone in sight I would be friendless



and probably barred and it would do me little good to protest that it



was my "style".



* * * Your replies to Col and Adam Lea are laughable in their sheer



pomposity and lack of self-awareness. *They read like corporate



bollock-speak.



* * * I can't make sense of your second paragraph. *Who is the "He"



referred to? * *Is it Lawrence, one of your 1001 betes noires? *Can't



be; there's no reference to him in my post. *Is it me? *Can't be; the



reply is to me. *And if it is me where on earth did you get the idea



that I had confused you with sutartsorric or Reg. *And who is the "far



right-wing very bitter old man"? Surely not Will. *Is it Lawrence?



He's probably younger than you, you know. *No, he can't be, you're



14.



Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.



You didn't like me exposing your lie did you? I see you never try to return to it, or address it, as you cannot valaidate that untruth. As I said, you posted it for effect, hoping you'd get away with the untrue little snidy swipe. Once again, your views are irrelevant. Whether you like it. or not, you are a part of a newsgroup that is the sum of its parts. Those parts include me, as well as you and the feeling of dislike is mutual, for very good reason, as all your posts now are directed at me. They have now degenerated into outright abuse and childish name-calling. Your posts do when you lose it. I'm afraid that your foul mouth can be as bad as it gets at that time and you know that. I *never* resort to foul-mouthed writing. Have you ever noticed?



Lawrence turned 60 recently. His paranoia led him to think that I was posting under 3 aliases, but he's just made himself look stupid again, as that has been shown to be ridiculous. No-one accused you of doing that, but you are under a fog of invective and you are now confused as to who has said what. Where did you get that idea from?- Hide quoted text -



- Show quoted text -



What's this "lie" you're banging on about?



What amazes me about you is the level of denial you show.

Saying that Will is "resting" reminds me of the Monty Python Parrot

Sketch where the dead parrot is claimed by the pet-shop owner to be

merely "resting". Of course it was. We all need a rest from you,

anyway. Two weather groups solved the problem in the most obvious way

by banning you. You're probably in denial over that, too.



You are such a fool. Do you realise that very few people on

this group are going to agree with or amplify anything you write, even

on AGW, simply for not wanting to be in any way associated with you?



I have a voluminous postbag from over the years in which the

source of your dysfunctional personality is discussed at length. I

don't think you'd like to read it but you ought to. Something,

surely, must be able to penetrate the battlements you have built round

yourself and from which you fire your poison darts.



Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Oh dear. I had a "postbag" this morning which validated everything I've said about hughes being a pretty foul piece of work and not being in control. There is a face to hughes, folks, that he's revealed on here before and is still there when he takes a dislike to someone.

Should I post the email hughes, or will you apologise to me now for what you said? I'll happily let it lie if you do. Do, please, remember all the things that have been said about "social etiquette" and you have a chance here to step back and realise there are lines beyond which I never go.

On Monday, 22 April 2013 07:18:36 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, April 22, 2013 4:44:15 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote: On Apr 21, 6:35*pm, Dawlish wrote: On Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:09:55 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote: On Apr 21, 7:03*am, Dawlish wrote: On Sunday, April 21, 2013 1:42:04 AM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote: * * *What's this, a scorched earth policy? *Going for broke? *You're never going to be taken seriously on this group so you make sure no- one else can enjoy it either. *God, you're pathetic. *Nasty as well. Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey. If I decide to reply to someone, hughes, my "style" won't be dictated by someone like you, I can assure you. As I've said before; you are welcome to your opinion, but this present round of invective has been precipitated by me *exposed your attempted lie. He's done exactly what I said he would and talked late night, veiled, violence again and now has some mad idea that stuartstorric is me. I think he thought that Reg was me as well. Put him right, dear boy, will you? PS You can bet you life that the first thing that Will does this morning is to check how many new people are "supporting him". The temptation to post must be huge and I hope he does. No-one cares what the *far right-wing, very bitter old man (perfect existence, isn't it) *does this morning except himself and no-one cares, but him, whether he posts. *)) * * * *The present round of invective was triggered by Will's straightforward statement in his "resignation letter" that the reason he left was because of you. *Yes, you, *Paul Garvey of Dawlish. *You simply cannot escape this - it's there in black and white. *I say "triggered" because there is a deep well of resentment against you and Will's departure is yet another case of the lid being lifted. * * * *As for "style" you simply haven't got it. *If I walked into my pub and annoyed and insulted everyone in sight I would be friendless and probably barred and it would do me little good to protest that it was my "style". * * * Your replies to Col and Adam Lea are laughable in their sheer pomposity and lack of self-awareness. *They read like corporate bollock-speak. * * * I can't make sense of your second paragraph. *Who is the "He" referred to? * *Is it Lawrence, one of your 1001 betes noires? *Can't be; there's no reference to him in my post. *Is it me? *Can't be; the reply is to me. *And if it is me where on earth did you get the idea that I had confused you with sutartsorric or Reg. *And who is the "far right-wing very bitter old man"? Surely not Will. *Is it Lawrence? He's probably younger than you, you know. *No, he can't be, you're 14. Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey. You didn't like me exposing your lie did you? I see you never try to return to it, or address it, as you cannot valaidate that untruth. As I said, you posted it for effect, hoping you'd get away with the untrue little snidy swipe. Once again, your views are irrelevant. Whether you like it. or not, you are a part of a newsgroup that is the sum of its parts. Those parts include me, as well as you and the feeling of dislike is mutual, for very good reason, as all your posts now are directed at me. They have now degenerated into outright abuse and childish name-calling. Your posts do when you lose it. I'm afraid that your foul mouth can be as bad as it gets at that time and you know that. I *never* resort to foul-mouthed writing. Have you ever noticed? Lawrence turned 60 recently. His paranoia led him to think that I was posting under 3 aliases, but he's just made himself look stupid again, as that has been shown to be ridiculous. No-one accused you of doing that, but you are under a fog of invective and you are now confused as to who has said what. Where did you get that idea from?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What's this "lie" you're banging on about? What amazes me about you is the level of denial you show. Saying that Will is "resting" reminds me of the Monty Python Parrot Sketch where the dead parrot is claimed by the pet-shop owner to be merely "resting". Of course it was. We all need a rest from you, anyway. Two weather groups solved the problem in the most obvious way by banning you. You're probably in denial over that, too. You are such a fool. Do you realise that very few people on this group are going to agree with or amplify anything you write, even on AGW, simply for not wanting to be in any way associated with you? I have a voluminous postbag from over the years in which the source of your dysfunctional personality is discussed at length. I don't think you'd like to read it but you ought to. Something, surely, must be able to penetrate the battlements you have built round yourself and from which you fire your poison darts. Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey. Oh dear. I had a "postbag" this morning which validated everything I've said about hughes being a pretty foul piece of work and not being in control. There is a face to hughes, folks, that he's revealed on here before and is still there when he takes a dislike to someone. Should I post the email hughes, or will you apologise to me now for what you said? I'll happily let it lie if you do. Do, please, remember all the things that have been said about "social etiquette" and you have a chance here to step back and realise there are lines beyond which I never go.

Paul please stop all of this it's getting totally out of hand.

Look Tudor is an honest decent intelligent bloke, before we met there was always some friction as I accept I can be quite irritating at times , but when you meet, it negates so much. In all seriousness maybe some of us should meet up then we would see each other in our entirety and not words on a LCD screen.

Really in all honesty this is getting ridiculous. What do you think about several of us meeting up because I believe that would wipe out immediately all this bad feeling. Look because you don't agree with other people’s views it doesn't make them a deadly enemy. Let’s please just stop all of this